Laserfiche WebLink
Since the March 15 City Council work session Staff has had discussions with the property <br />owner, the service providers that are using the tower, and Ulteig Engineering who conducted the <br />structural analysis of the tower for the City (Attachment E). Through these discussions Staff has <br />been able to clarify the number of antennas on the tower and how many of these are currently <br />operational. According to Ulteig Engineering there are currently 3 0 antennas on the tower. <br />Through discussions with the service providers who are on the tower Staff learned that all of the <br />antennas are currently being used; three antennas are owned and managed by American <br />Messaging, 15 antennas belong to Verizon Wireless, and eleven of the antennas are owned by <br />Nextera. The final antenna that is located on the tower is a relay antenna that is used as an <br />intermediary to remotely gather data about the other antennas that are on the tower. <br />Discussion <br />There are two parts to the Zoning Code amendment request (Attachment C and D). The first part <br />would make communications towers that were in existence prior to the effective date of the <br />zoning arnendment conditional uses, thus allowing them as the primary use on the property on <br />which they are located. The second part would allow antennas to be located on these existing <br />communications towers up to the height of the existing tower, and exempt them from setback <br />regulations. If approved, the combined effect of the amendment requests would allow additional <br />antennas on communications towers that exceed the height of 75 feet, and were in existence prior <br />to the adoption of this amendment, up to the limit of the CUP under which each tower operates. <br />This would make the existing tower a conforming structure. These provisions would not apply <br />to requests for new towers. <br />FCC Regulations <br />Whenever a city reviews its antenna ordinances, it is important to consider federal regulations. <br />All cities must take into account the provisions in the Federal Communications Act. Section <br />332(c)(7) of the Communications Act preserves state and local authority over zoning and land <br />use decisions for communications antennas; however, it includes limitations on that authority. <br />According to the regulations, a state or local government may not unreasonably discriminate <br />among providers of functionally equivalent services, may not regulate in a manner that prohibits <br />or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services, must act on applications within <br />a reasonable period of time, and must make any denial of an application in writing supported by <br />substantial evidence in a written record. The statute also preempts local decisions premised <br />directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions, assuming <br />that the provider is in compliance with the Commission's RF rules. <br />(htt�://wireless.fcc. �ov/sitin�/local-state-gov.html) <br />. • <br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Meeting fo� April 26, 2010 <br />C: IDOCUME IIMEAGAN�I.BEEILOCALS�IITempIELFl5104-26-10 - Regular Meeting - PC 09-023 - Memo.doc <br />Page 2 of 6 <br />